"Georg C. F. Greve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > gg> That was also discussed about the GPL. > > gg> Many people were complaining that it wasn't free because they > gg> couldn't take parts of GPL'ed software and compile them into > gg> their proprietary software any way they liked. > > I just realized that it was probably not wise to use proprietary > software in that example as people might get more upset about it. > > In case anyone felt personally insulted: I apologize, this was not my > intention. > > So please allow me to change that paragraph to > > Many people were complaining that it wasn't free because they > couldn't take random parts of GPL'ed software and compile them into > their Free Software without taking the GPL into account. > > As legal proceedings are the same and this will hopefully increase my > chances of being understood correctly.
You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it. Why does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference card from the manual? Sure, I could make a one-sided card where the other side is the Manifesto, but that wastes half my space. There's an easy and wrong counterargument that I'd have to include the license, but I can put that on cheap onion paper; the Manifesto has to be included as part of the document, so it's got to go on the same expensive coffee-proof laminated stock as the reference card. In addition, how does the FSF expect anybody other than itself to distribute a GPL'd emacs with a GFDL manual? As far as I can see, they cannot be distributed together. Emacs links against the manual files, interpreting them programmatically -- this is how it takes me straight to the info page referring to particular variables or functions. It is, after all, a self-documenting editor. But the GFDL imposes additional requirements over the GPL, so they may not be distributed linked. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/